From: braden_mcdaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-01 13:46:05
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_e...>
>
> > --- In boost_at_y..., Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_r...> wrote:
> > > Takign a look at what other source type programs do (gcc, emacs,
> > perl, etc.).
> >
> > Don't look at what other programs do; look at what other
*libraries* do.
> >
> > > It seems that versioning the subdirectories under a common prefix
> > location is
> > > a workable practice. Would then something like the following work
> > for us?
> > >
> > > $prefix/include/boost/1.27.0/boost/.../*.hpp
> > > $prefix/lib/boost/1.27.0/*.(a,so)
> > > $prefix/share/boost/1.27.0/tools/build/*.jam
> >
> > That's offensive.
>
> Please try to keep extreme pronouncements out of the discussion.
This sort
> of thing just causes static and doesn't help at all.
>
> > Why would you do this? The versioning "problem" is solved by autoconf
> > and libtool.
> >
> > If someone wants to install multiple boost versions on their system at
> > once, the solution is simple: don't put them under the same prefix.
>
> That's not a very smooth solution for those who need to test against
> multiple versions.
Such persons are the minority. It is better to make their lives a
little more difficult than to make the lives of everyone else much
more difficult.
What other libraries use a scheme like Rene suggested?
These issues with deployment aren't new, and they certainly aren't
unique to Boost. Why are novel solutions being proposed?
> Having a version number under a common prefix really
> simplifies configuration: it means you don't need to explicitly
specify an
> installation directory for each version you want to test against.
Testing against multiple versions of Boost is definitely an edge case.
Braden